The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) The Defendant entered the store of this case. However, since the store of this case was entirely unaware of the fact that the store of this case had already been delivered to another person, there was no intention to intrude into the structure. 2) The Defendant did not delete the file of the Customer List which was stored in the computer of the store of this case.

(b) The sentencing division (a fine of five million won is imposed);

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) from January 2006 to January 201, 2013, the Defendant: (b) had a dance room store in the name of “C” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B; (c) from January 2013 to Nov. 201, 2015, had a person who had operated a dance room in the name of “D Building E” in the Ilyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City; and (d) had his wife manage the said F store from November 2015 to his wife’s work as a foundation.

G around November 21, 2016, the victim I and G entered into a premium contract with the victim to transfer the preexisting customer list and collection equipment installed inside the F Burial to the victim KRW 136 million, and around November 30, 2016, G received KRW 20 million from the victim, and around December 28, 2016, received KRW 80 million from the victim, and completed the transfer of possession, such as giving and receiving KRW 20 million from the victim each on November 30, 2016, and giving and receiving KRW 80 million from the victim on December 28, 2016.

On December 31, 2016, the Defendant, at around 00:02, invaded the security card in possession of the above store and removed the customer identification number, customer name, contact number, date, and amount of the store computer, and damaged the electronic records owned by the victim by removing three original X-cell file and three duplicate files.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant stated in the instant facts charged.